Hi, moving this to the list, as I assume it was not meant personally.
Am Sonntag, den 26.01.2014, 23:45 +0100 schrieb Julien Cristau: > On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 21:28:37 +0000, James Cowgill wrote: > > > Package: release.debian.org > > Severity: normal > > User: release.debian....@packages.debian.org > > Usertags: binnmu > > > > Hi, > > > > github-backup is still compiled against libicu48 on some architetures > > > > nmu github-backup_1.20131203 . amd64 i386 powerpc sparc . -m "rebuild > > against libicu52" > > > Cc+=nomeata. > > Joachim, it would be helpful if haskell packages didn't take months to > move from unstable to testing. Can we do something to avoid this? my hope lies in PPAs; once we have them I plan to only upload complete set of consistent Haskell packages to unstable. But at the moment, I believe all haskell packages are able to migrate, modulo some remaining removals by the ftp team, see https://lists.debian.org/debian-haskell/2014/01/msg00013.html for a mostly up-to-date list of open issues. Oh, and since you are asking for way to improve the situation: I don’t have a good way of fining out the blockers for haskell. E.g. https://release.debian.org/migration/testing.pl?package=haskell-github is very unhelpful, and so is https://release.debian.org/britney/update_output.txt. But then, the question I want to be answered by these tools is quite tricky, as it involves determining the set of involved packages, and then finding out the blockers for the whole set. But how does that relate to github-backup? It is a program, not a library, and thus has no difficult dependencies into the Haskell world. I believe you just have to issue the binNMUs and tomorrow the github-backup line in https://release.debian.org/transitions/html/icu52.html will be green. Greetings, Joachim -- Joachim "nomeata" Breitner Debian Developer nome...@debian.org | ICQ# 74513189 | GPG-Keyid: 4743206C JID: nome...@joachim-breitner.de | http://people.debian.org/~nomeata
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part